Jurisprudence Database
The Jurisprudence Database sets out leading judgments and commentary by international and domestic legal mechanisms in the field of enforced disappearances. It summarises factual and legal findings and identifies common themes and search terms allowing for a comparative cross-jurisdictional analysis of this area of law. Users can search the source bank through a filter-based or key-term search and access text in English, Spanish, Russian and French.
Search the PDF content in documents uploaded to the Enforced Disappearance Legal Database.
Filter by Show Filters
Country
Case Decision Year
Keywords
Key Judgment
Types of Source
Authority
Themes
Rizvanović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina
The Committee found a violation of the victim's right to life, right not to be subjected to inhuman treatment, and right to liberty and security, due to the fact that no specific measures were undertaken to investigate his arbitrary deprivation of liberty, ill-treatment and enforced disappearance, and no information was provided as to his fate and whereabouts. The Committee also made a finding of inhuman treatment with respect to the victim's family, in light of the fact that the limited information that they obtained throughout the proceedings was only provided to them at their own request or after very long ...click to read more
Relatives as Victims | Right to Know the Truth | State/Non-State Agents | Effective Remedy | Duty to Investigate | Duty to Prosecute | Deprivation of Liberty
Statement on the ratione temporis element in the review of reports submitted by States parties under the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance
The Committee clarifies the scope of ratione temporis element in the review of states reports and individual cases concerning enforced disappearances. Individual cases which commenced before the entry into force of the Convention for the state concerned cannot be examined. The reporting process takes into consideration the current obligations of the state party.
Admissibility
Janowiec and Others v. Russia
The Court was satisfied that between 1939 and 1940 the victims were in custody and under the full and exclusive control of the State, concluding that those who were taken prisoner in 1939 must be presumed to have been executed by the authorities in 1940. The Court found that the period of time between their death and the ratification of the Convention by the State was too long for a genuine connection to be established between the two dates, in light of the fact that the events that might have triggered the obligation to investigate took place more than ten ...click to read more
State/Non-State Agents | Admissibility
Osorio Rivera v. Peru
The Court, relying on the work of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, found that the elements of the crime of enforced disappearance could be made out even where the initial detention or arrest was legal. Accordingly it found that the complex crime of enforced disappearances can sometimes be initiated by a lawful arrest or detention.
Deprivation of Liberty | Evidence | Systemic Practice
Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia
The Court found a violation of the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment in three respects. First, the Court found that the victim's forcible return to his country exposed him to a real risk of being subjected to ill treatment. The authorities failed to protect him despite the fact that his personal circumstances (in particular, the fact that he was granted asylum and charged with political crimes), the circumstances in which he was abducted, and the general human rights situation in his country provided a sufficient basis from which to infer the existence of such a risk. Second, the Court found ...click to read more
Duty to Prosecute | Extraterritorial Jurisdiction | Interim/Urgent Measures | Reparations | Refugees and Migrants | Burden of Proof | Obligation to Prevent | Deprivation of Liberty | Evidence | Systemic Practice | Duty to Investigate
Sedhai v. Nepal
The Committee concluded that the State had failed in its duty to protect the victim’s life, recalling that in cases of enforced disappearance the unacknowledged deprivation of liberty places the person outside the protection of the law and their life at serious and constant risk, for which the State is accountable. It further made a finding of torture and inhuman treatment with respect to the victim in light of the acts of torture to which he was exposed, his incommunicado detention and enforced disappearance, as well as his conditions of detention. The Committee also made a finding of inhuman treatment ...click to read more
Refusal to Disclose Fate | Relatives as Victims | Right to Know the Truth | Effective Remedy | Duty to Investigate | Duty to Prosecute | Deprivation of Liberty
Nicolaides Cristino et al.
The Court established that a permanent clandestine organisation existed which had as its aim the commission of multiple crimes, including the systematic abduction of children born to illegally detained women and the breaking of all biological family ties by their removal and by the concealment of what had been done. It held that it was composed of the highest military ranks, persons in the armed forces and intelligence services and military doctors. The Court inferred from the way the system ran that it operated under the Military Intitute Command. The Court held that the crimes carried out within the framework of ...click to read more
Children/Youth | Crimes Against Humanity | Women and Girls | Deprivation of Liberty | Systemic Practice | Relatives as Victims
Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia
The Court found that terminating pending investigations into the abductions solely on the grounds that the time-limit has expired was contrary to the obligation to investigate alleged violations of the right to life. It also reiterated that, in cases of disappearance, the obligation to investigate persists as long as the fate of the person is unaccounted for. The Court found the existence of systemic problems at the national level for which no effective domestic remedy was available, holding that criminal investigations of abductions in circumstances suggesting the carrying out of clandestine security operations are inadequate, as they normally do not ...click to read more
Deprivation of Liberty | Reparations | Evidence | Burden of Proof | Systemic Practice | Obligation to Prevent | Relatives as Victims | Right to Know the Truth | State/Non-State Agents | Effective Remedy | Duty to Investigate | Duty to Prosecute | Interim/Urgent Measures
Mechani v. Algeria
The Committee reiterated its position that the national legislation prohibiting the opening of proceedings on cases of disappearance which occurred during the period of "National Tragedy" was incompatible with the Covenant. The Committee made a finding of inhuman treatment with respect to the victim due to the fact that he was held in incommunicado detention. It also made a finding of inhuman treatment with respect to the victim's father, in light of the anguish and distress caused by the disappearance. The Committee also found a violation of the victim’s right to liberty and security, as he was detained without being ...click to read more
Refusal to Disclose Fate | Relatives as Victims | Right to Know the Truth | Effective Remedy | Duty to Investigate | Deprivation of Liberty | Duty to Prosecute | Evidence | Amnesties | Judicial Protection | Burden of Proof | Juridical Personality
Burgos v. General Hermogenes Esperon et al.
The Court determined that the victim’s abduction, the uncertainty about his whereabouts and his well-being, and the armed forces’ denial of custody over him made it possible to classify this as an enforced disappearance. It held that the case was covered by the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, the objective of which was the determination of whether an enforced disappearance has taken place and who is responsible or accountable for it. The Court found evidence of the military’s involvement in the abduction of the victim, and identified the army major as one of those responsible for the enforced disappearance. ...click to read more
Deprivation of Liberty | Refusal to Disclose Fate